23 May 17
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBeware of Freaks bearing gifts.
I should have given you so much evidence, you wouldn't want to deny it.
Instead, it's piece, here, a piece there, and from what I've gathered from you, it's really just a bit light on irrefutable and a scosh less than the full load.
Forgive me.
Let's try this one, k?
[youtube]MTOQMh6rNZQ[/youtube]
23 May 17
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo Manchester when it sizzles , eh?
... here, kitty-kitty...
It seems I'm having trouble starting a new thread, so I'll just post this here.
What do you think Freaky? Another fraud?
All i'll say is at least the IRS gave 'em warning before exploding bombs. They aimed up at soldiers, not kids at a concert.
What do you guys think?
23 May 17
Originally posted by karoly aczelHaven't looked yet, sorry.
So Manchester when it sizzles , eh?
It seems I'm having trouble starting a new thread, so I'll just post this here.
What do you think Freaky? Another fraud?
All i'll say is at least the IRS gave 'em warning before exploding bombs. They aimed up at soldiers, not kids at a concert.
What do you guys think?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou do realize that Mr Denmark et Sweden's camera is not 1m above sea level right?? And yet all his calcs are based on a 1m above sea level. If you cannot judge for yourself that the camera height is much more than 1m above the sea level, not above the jetty level which is clearly more than 1m above the sea lapping at the shore below, then I got nothing for you, but in case you missed it, all his calcs are bogus because he is not literally 1m above sea level. Get him to stand with his toe at the waters edge and shoot from the hip, and get the same results and I would believe....
... here, kitty-kitty...
And why do flat earthers who have spent a lot of their time debunking direct flights from Sydney to South America ( 10 hrs last time I looked) continue to claim that you can't actually get a direct flight against all the evidence to the contrary that people are doing just that, flying Sydney to Santiago in 10 hrs which would be impossible according to the flat earth distance, unless of course the airline industry has being lying about the max cruise speed of passenger aircraft all along.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIs this supposed to prove anything other than the filmer is rubbish at whatever he's doing?
I should have given you so much evidence, you wouldn't want to deny it.
Instead, it's piece, here, a piece there, and from what I've gathered from you, it's really just a bit light on irrefutable and a scosh less than the full load.
Forgive me.
Let's try this one, k?
[youtube]MTOQMh6rNZQ[/youtube]
23 May 17
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNice to see a video from my old neighborhood.
I should have given you so much evidence, you wouldn't want to deny it.
Instead, it's piece, here, a piece there, and from what I've gathered from you, it's really just a bit light on irrefutable and a scosh less than the full load.
Forgive me.
Let's try this one, k?
[youtube]MTOQMh6rNZQ[/youtube]
But that's about the nicest thing I can say about this bs.
23 May 17
Originally posted by kmax87He's down at the water, so I don't know that I would quibble too much about his calculation, but just for chips and giggles, let's put a pencil to it.
You do realize that Mr Denmark et Sweden's camera is not 1m above sea level right?? And yet all his calcs are based on a 1m above sea level. If you cannot judge for yourself that the camera height is much more than 1m above the sea level, not above the jetty level which is clearly more than 1m above the sea lapping at the shore below, then I got nothing for ...[text shortened]... the airline industry has being lying about the max cruise speed of passenger aircraft all along.
For the chimney example, if he should have calculated 6' instead (and we have no real reason to think so, since the beginning shows he's down at water level), he's off by 15'--- as in 15' less loss than reported.
Does that look like 15' worth of difference in the zoomed in version?
For the water tower at 276', he's got the loss at 203' and at 6' it would be 18' less, to 185'.
The water tower should show only the top 91', but that's clearly not the case.
Grain silos he has at 154' but take it to 139' and the results are about the same.
You'd only be able to see about 15' of the top of the silos, but, again, this is not the case.
Conclusion: if he's off, it's not by much, and certainly nowhere near significant enough to erase the overall results.
23 May 17
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo did the gig in Manchester get bombed or ...?
He's down at the water, so I don't know that I would quibble too much about his calculation, but just for chips and giggles, let's put a pencil to it.
For the chimney example, if he should have calculated 6' instead (and we have no real reason to think so, since the beginning shows he's down at water level), he's off by 15'--- as in 15' less loss than r ...[text shortened]... f, it's not by much, and certainly nowhere near significant enough to erase the overall results.
Based on the pics it could be another stich up ,no?